The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that this is a notable subject. Article can be expanded through normal editing. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pantelides algorithm[edit]

Pantelides algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is both little evidence of significance, and only the lead sentence might be appropriate in a good article about the subject. No reliable sources are provided other than [1], which provides partial evidence of existence, not of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article shouldn't be removed: the algorithm itself is one of the backbones of Modelica compilers and in the Modeling and simulation industry considered a breakthrough for component-based modeling. — User:rhodin, 7 December 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a plausible reason to keep the article, if there was anything in the article worth keeping. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is improved (introduction, better sources), you agree that it is worth keeping? I'll see what I can do through this weekend to improve the article. --Rhodin (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting David Eppstein's note below, yes. I still say that there is only one sentence worth keeping in the article as I last read it. Keeping WP:TNT in mind, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google scholar shows 584 citations to the original publication of this algorithm, and 182 publications using the exact phrase "Pantelides algorithm", making it clearly notable. The fact that our current article is a stub in need of expansion is not a valid reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The algorithm is a core one in the simulation of dynamic systems. The article is a stub (created by me some years ago) and needs expansion rather than deletion. Jdpipe (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article is pretty much useless, both to people unfamiliar with the term, and to people familiar with the term, but that may not be sufficient for WP:BLOWITUP to apply. The second paragraph would be useful if there were context. At a minimum, we need to link "index" in the lead, but I cannot find an appropriate point in the differential-algebraic equation article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article could be much improved, but isn't non-notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.